mjewkes

> However, a proof of the Riemann hypothesis, say, may need new ideas that are strictly outside of the convex hull of current mathematical ideas

[...]

> After I finished writing this blog post, and had already sent it to Terry, OpenAI released a huge treasure trove of results in mathematics [including] the resolution of the so-called quasi Riemann Hypothesis

We ought to all be careful about underestimating the speed and magnitude of the change that is coming.

> if you are a student who is passionate to learn what is new and what is left to do, then a PhD is definitely the right path for you

This is an awful lot of confidence to put behind career advice in a wildly changing world. Markets are real and tradeoffs bite. We're not in gay communist space utopia yet.

>an awful lot of modern professional life consists of producing artifacts whose primary audience is other people producing artifacts. Slide decks for slide decks, strategy documents about strategy documents

This is because thinking, communication, and collaboration are extremely valuable.

Sure, they can build it here—but protectionism doesn’t deliver long-term success.

In the short term, it drives up prices and makes consumers poorer. In the long run, tariffs shield companies from global competition and limit their ability to scale. Without that pressure or opportunity, businesses grow weaker—not stronger.

That weakens U.S. industry, not strengthens it.

I agree completely with the first part. But SWA-1380 was a commercial operating fatality in 2018. Not a crash into terrain, but the engine definitely crashed into the fuselage.

Centrifugal forces on the spinning object will tear it apart once it goes “really fast”

>I can say this with pretty strong confidence: had the FDA not being so strict about its trials, lots of these experimental type of antibodies would have already received massived research and commercialization

If the FDA was not so strict in requiring evidence, medicine would look like the supplement aisle, and the incentive to actually do the stupidly hard work of developing effective drugs & proving their efficacy would disappear.

Why even bother investing in developing a complex new antibody if you can sell some mushroom powder from a beach and claim whatever you want about it, ala Tim Ferris & "BrainQUICKEN".

There are plently of valid "incremental" critiques about the FDA. IMO, their devices and diagnostics divisions are weaker than CDER and CBER. Even those two (drug focused) divisions can be too slow moving and occasionally capricious about when they want more evidence. But their final decisions are generally pretty good, with a few exceptions. And most of those exceptions are drugs that they approved that they shouldn't have (e.g. Aduhelm) - not vice versa.

Can you point at a promising drug candidate with statistically solid efficacy data that CDER or CBER has rejected?

Also - note that there are approved scFVs and VHHs and mimetics - as stated in the article. Each is useful in particular situations, but none is some sort of wild medical breakthrough. There is just no evidence that any of these modalities would be attracting extraordinary investment "if only it weren't for the FDA".

If you are truly netflix-to-be, you should be able to affordably incentivize your 12 key employees with equity.

An exit for Employee < 50 at a netflix-to be will be in the hundreds of millions.

Apples are better than bananas. Cherries are worse than apples. Are cherries better than bananas?

--

GPT-4 - wrong

gpt2-chatbot - wrong

Claude 3 Opus - correct

For sure. It's not a fair prompt at all. I'm super bullish on LLMs and am using GPT-4 in production right now. This stuff is magic.

It's actually hard to find short, simple, "plain english" failure cases like the above.

The "chain of reasoning" that the modern models deploy before the fail is funny too. This is GPT-4:

---

To determine the relationship between cherries and bananas based on your statements, let's break it down:

  1. Apples are better than bananas.
  2. Cherries are worse than apples.

From statement 1, we know apples rank higher than bananas. Statement 2 tells us cherries rank lower than apples. By this logic, since cherries are lower than apples, which are higher than bananas, it follows that cherries are also lower than bananas.

Therefore, based on these comparisons, cherries are not better than bananas.